Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1000/B of 1987, decided on 3rd June, 1987.

----S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468 & 471- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5--Bail, grant of- Misappropriation of Rs.22,65,000 taking place in year 1976--Case registered in 1983--Number of other cases registered against accused--Trial not started in any case--Cases transferred from one Court to another without notice to accused--Accused not knowing where to appear--Trial not likely to commence--Held, accused could not be treated as absconder and there was no justification to keep him behind bars--Bail granted in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioner.

Farooq Bedar A.A.-G. for the State.

Muhammad Sharif son of Beer Din, resident of Rahat Park, Samanabad, Lahore (presently confined in District Jail, Lahore) has filed this petition for bail after arrest. He is accused in a number of criminal cases. The total comes to 12. In ten cases he is already on bail. The allegation against him is that in his capacity as National Savings Officer while working at the National Savings Centre Multan Road, Lahore, he misappropriated on different occasions different sums running into lacs of rupees.

The transaction for which criminal cases have been registered against him pertains to the period commencing from 74 to 77. Different F.I.Rs. were lodged which resulted in different cases being registered against the petitioner. In this case FIR was lodged on 23-5-1983.

According to F .I. R., the amount misappropriated is to the tune of Rs.22,65,000/-. The aforesaid misappropriation according to the prosecution took place in the year 1976. As already observed the report was lodged in the year 1983.

On the last date of hearing the Inspector FIA submitted that the petitioner remained absconder for some time after being released on bail. I adjourned the case and directed the counsel for the petitioner as well as A . A . -G . to verify this position.

Today full dress arguments have been heard from both sides.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that although number of cases had been registered against the petitioner but not in a single case the prosecution cared to examine any witness. This shows mala fide of the prosecution and the fact that they have no case, otherwise the trial could not have been delayed so long.

Learned counsel refuted the allegation of absconsion and submitted that what happened was that at one stage cases of the petitioner were transferred from one Court to another. The petitioner had no intimation where to appear. It is this interim period which the prosecution is treating as the period of absconsion. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner after bail never misused the concession. Last of all it was submitted that the prosecution is not to suffer in case the petitioner is out of jail, whereas the petitioner is undergoing hardship without any ryhme or reason.

I have also heard A.A.-G. at some length.

It is a fact that the trial has not yet started in any of the cases pending against the petitioner. Similarly I am not convinced that the petitioner was absconder. It is also an admitted fact that the cases were transferred from one Court to another. Prosecution has not produced any evidence that the petitioner knew when and where to appear. Hence I am not inclined to treat him as an absconder.

There appears to be no justification to keep him behind the bars especially when it is not known when the trial is likely to commence.

The petitioner is accordingly admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. ten lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.

S.A./M-303/L

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.